McCain: So basically we're picking the president for the final 2 years of the term since McCain will likely succumb to angry-old-man-exploding-head-disease shortly after he would be elected. Tim Pawlenty because he's young and conservative. Will appeal to the all important (for the Republicans) douche-bag demographic.

Bayh is interesting since he was a Clinton supported and may bring some stubborn Clinton supporters back into the fray.

Webb is more likely than Bayh because Virginia is trending Democratic (Gov. Kaine, Sen. Webb, and most likely Sen. Mark Warner along with demographic trends). So it's safer to pick him. But Indiana isn't going anywhere. It has a Republican governor and a split Senate delegation. Why would we poach a red-state Senator and give up that seat? Vice Presidents don't bring their home states to the table. Obama needs all the support in the Senate he can get to pass his agenda...

Webb is more likely than Bayh because Virginia is trending Democratic (Gov. Kaine, Sen. Webb, and most likely Sen. Mark Warner along with demographic trends). So it's safer to pick him. But Indiana isn't going anywhere. It has a Republican governor and a split Senate delegation. Why would we poach a red-state Senator and give up that seat? Vice Presidents don't bring their home states to the table. Obama needs all the support in the Senate he can get to pass his agenda...

Webb has definitively stated that he will not be a veep nominee.

You're right about losing Bayh from the Senate, but I chose him because he's about the safest, most boring choice possible for Obama. Then again, I always pick a number 1 seed in NCAA tournament pools too.

Hate filled elitist! I thought your Jesus Obama that you love so much you would gladly kill for him was all about the peace and love and walking on water and laying on of hands and raising the dead, but now we see the rage and ugliness lying just beneath the surface!

Terrifying.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.

You're right about losing Bayh from the Senate, but I chose him because he's about the safest, most boring choice possible for Obama. Then again, I always pick a number 1 seed in NCAA tournament pools too.

Hate filled elitist! I thought your Jesus Obama that you love so much you would gladly kill for him was all about the peace and love and walking on water and laying on of hands and raising the dead, but now we see the rage and ugliness lying just beneath the surface!

Terrifying.

Those are the type of comments Phil Gramm must have been talking about when he called us a nation of whiners.

Help him? Change his diapers? Maybe. But I think it would be off putting to lots of evangelicals. However, I agree it would help with on the fence independents and moderate republicans.

I am no enemy to evangelicals and I have no problem with Romney being Mormon. I actually figure he would be more friendly to evangelicals than old McCain himself.

I also think that for many of the conservatives out there who are put off by the moderate nature of McCain Romney lends a bit of a conservative tilt to the ticket.

I could be wrong but this is just how I see it.

Ohh and.. we all know McCain speaks almost worse than our current president and like him or hate him Romney is very well spoken in front of a camera. Something McCain needs much help with so it seems....

Fellows

May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Not all evangelicals are as progressive as you, Fellowship, and living in the not so deep south i have witnessed the "bible-thumpers" (mostly baptists, there is not many of those in the south, are there? ) put down Mormons and to them a Mormon is on the same level as electing a Muslim, Atheist, or god forbid one of those shifty Jews.

At this point I have absolutely no idea who Obama will choose, but I'll do what everyone else is doing...pulling something out of my ass!

First rule: do no harm. So I don't seem Obama picking Biden. Biden has a long history of foot-in-mouth disease. Second rule: shore up a weakness. Sebilious could be a contender here. But a black man AND a woman on the same ticket? Might violate the first rule.

I don't think Wes Clark has as many negatives as others have stated. He shores up the military side. And he can stay on message pretty tightly (the McCain POW flap was manufactured outrage, if you ask me).

My favorite was Webb. I like aggressive Dems. But he may violate the first rule with his tough talk.

Unfortunately the combo of Rule 1 and 2 almost demands that Obama choose a milquetoast, lackluster candidate like...

My prediction? Even Bayh. (Why? Because that selection with piss off the Netroots to no end and Obama loves to stick liberal bloggers in the eye with centrist decisions).

McCAIN --

I have no clue. And I don't care.

"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."

Just like tons of people who ran for president, when asked before they announced they were running, said they would unequivocally not run for president.

Or better yet, just like Apple, when confronted with a question about whether a leak is true, it is unequivocally not true, until Apple announces the product themselves a few months later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by progmac

McCain: Giuliani? I really have no idea.

WTF? Why would anybody choose Giuliani? He's a sinking ship. He's too liberal for social conservatives, the only experience he has that people care about is 9/11, which no one really cares about anymore compared to the economy, and he got shitted on in the primaries.

If McCain looses any one of these four states [OH, FL, NC, TX], he looses the election.

If Obama picks a woman VP other than Hillary, a lot of women will feel that Hillary got snubbed. If Obama were to pick a women other than Hillary, he and Hillary would have to first demonstrate that Hillary would not have accepted the VP position.

If Obama picks someone with military experience, he can reduce the risk of loosing an election due to a terrorist attack or major event.

Picking Hillary appeals to a "unity ticket" or "dream ticket," but also could be a huge mistaken given the climate of the primary season.

My pick:

Claire McCaskill (of MO) - Why? Obama is very close to winning MO and McCaskill could help him win MO. Claire McCaskill appeals to somewhat more conservative or traditional american values. Why not? Could be confusing with McCain versus McCaskill.

Top three other likely people:

Kathleen Sebelius (of KS) - Why? Obama has history in Kansas, Sebelius is a strong female candidate.
Bill Richardson (NM) – Why? Very strong record of experience, can pull in hispanic/latino voters.
Jim Web (VA) – VA is a battle ground state that has been swinging towards the democrats lately.

McCain

Things to consider:

If McCain looses any one of these four states [OH, FL, NC, TX], he looses the election.

McCain needs to pick someone that is younger than himself, but not so young that it makes to sharp of a contrast. They need to be at least 60 years old, I'd say.

If McCain picks a woman, he can win a lot of female democrats angry about Hillary not winning the nomination or solidify female republican votes.

If McCain picks a women, he looses some of his "traditional" theme, which has been is theme up to this point.

My Pick:
Charlie Christ (FL) – Why? McCain needs to win Florida and Christ has been vocal for McCain since the primaries. Christ is just over 60, has white hair, but Botox keeps him looking slightly young.

Why do people keep thinking VP picks have much of an influence on winning the state they come from?

Where is the evidence?

It's not like there's a rule that says that VP have a certain influence on winning their home state, but the fact that there is the possibility of influence is undeniable. It could be a 1/10 of a percent influence or it could be as much as a couple of percents influence, who knows.

1. As much as I'd like Al Gore to be Obama's running mate, I highly doubt Gore would want the job... for the second time. Election campaigns are very draining for the candidates and Gore already got one stolen from him.
2. Perhaps, and that would be a good choice, except women may not like a woman VP pick whose name isn't Hillary Rodham Clinton.
3. No. Absolutely not. Two black people on one ticket? I think that'd be too much for more americans, and it would pull race even more into the election. Also, don't forget that Colin Powell, although resentful for his Bush administration activities, was, nevertheless, in the Bush administration, and a republican.

1. She's a women and black, so she might draw in the diversity vote, but she's too closely tied to the Bush administration. Also, the VP pick is supposed to be someone who, if McCain died (very likely, by the way) would be a great presidential pick. That's definitely not Rice. I would put my chips on Huckabee. He would really excite the evangelical right-wing base of the republican party.

1. As much as I'd like Al Gore to be Obama's running mate, I highly doubt Gore would want the job... for the second time. Election campaigns are very draining for the candidates and Gore already got one stolen from him.

First, I agree Gore wouldn't consider it. But secondly, how can one possibly believe Gore got the election stolen from him? Really, there's just no case for it whatsoever. And last...it doesn't have anything to do with the grueling schedule. It's about Gore supposedly not wanting the job anymore. Oh, and the the polls show he wouldn't help (coincidentally, that's why he isn't running for President, too).

Quote:

2. Perhaps, and that would be a good choice, except women may not like a woman VP pick whose name isn't Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That I agree with.

Quote:

3. No. Absolutely not. Two black people on one ticket? I think that'd be too much for more americans, and it would pull race even more into the election. Also, don't forget that Colin Powell, although resentful for his Bush administration activities, was, nevertheless, in the Bush administration, and a republican.

No one except Obama himself is pulling race into this election. And another black candidate is not going to change anything in itself. The number of people who are racist enough not to vote for Obama because he's black is not going to increase because of the VP choice.

Quote:

1. She's a women and black, so she might draw in the diversity vote, but she's too closely tied to the Bush administration. Also, the VP pick is supposed to be someone who, if McCain died (very likely, by the way) would be a great presidential pick. That's definitely not Rice. I would put my chips on Huckabee. He would really excite the evangelical right-wing base of the republican party.

No, it's supposed to be someone who would make a good President, not be "a great pick." Either way, why is that not Rice? I don't think she'll be the one, but it's more about the first reason you gave than the second.

______________________________

If I had to guess, I'd say McCain is likely to take Romney or Huckabee.

Obama looks to be leaning towards Webb or Kaine.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

If McCain looses any one of these four states [OH, FL, NC, TX], he looses the election.

If Obama picks a woman VP other than Hillary, a lot of women will feel that Hillary got snubbed. If Obama were to pick a women other than Hillary, he and Hillary would have to first demonstrate that Hillary would not have accepted the VP position.

If Obama picks someone with military experience, he can reduce the risk of loosing an election due to a terrorist attack or major event.

Picking Hillary appeals to a "unity ticket" or "dream ticket," but also could be a huge mistaken given the climate of the primary season.

My pick:

Claire McCaskill (of MO) - Why? Obama is very close to winning MO and McCaskill could help him win MO. Claire McCaskill appeals to somewhat more conservative or traditional american values. Why not? Could be confusing with McCain versus McCaskill.

Top three other likely people:

Kathleen Sebelius (of KS) - Why? Obama has history in Kansas, Sebelius is a strong female candidate.
Bill Richardson (NM) Why? Very strong record of experience, can pull in hispanic/latino voters.
Jim Web (VA) VA is a battle ground state that has been swinging towards the democrats lately.

McCain

Things to consider:

If McCain looses any one of these four states [OH, FL, NC, TX], he looses the election.

McCain needs to pick someone that is younger than himself, but not so young that it makes to sharp of a contrast. They need to be at least 60 years old, I'd say.

If McCain picks a woman, he can win a lot of female democrats angry about Hillary not winning the nomination or solidify female republican votes.

If McCain picks a women, he looses some of his "traditional" theme, which has been is theme up to this point.

My Pick:
Charlie Christ (FL) Why? McCain needs to win Florida and Christ has been vocal for McCain since the primaries. Christ is just over 60, has white hair, but Botox keeps him looking slightly young.

First, I agree Gore wouldn't consider it. But secondly, how can one possibly believe Gore got the election stolen from him? Really, there's just no case for it whatsoever. And last...it doesn't have anything to do with the grueling schedule. It's about Gore supposedly not wanting the job anymore. Oh, and the the polls show he wouldn't help (coincidentally, that's why he isn't running for President, too).

I don't think Gore wants the job, and that's the more important reason why Gore won't be the VP pick. But it's undeniable that elections are physically, emotionally and financially draining, and after such a tough experience with the 2000 election, whether it was "stolen" or not, who would want to go through that again?

On the topic of the election being stolen:

It's pretty almost undebatable that the election was stolen from Al Gore.

The Supreme Court unilaterally decided Bush won the election without a full recount.

Gore won the popular vote, the only thing that should matter. I do understand, that the electoral college is the way the system works, and therefore isn't an argument for why Gore should have won from a purely technical standpoint.

There is hard evidence of voter disenfranchisement in historically democratic areas (Miami/Dade).

Controversial punch-card systems were primarily found in poorer and historically democratic areas. Many votes were discounted because of so-called "Hanging Chads."

Gore won the election in the majority of third-party, post-election recounts.

Katherine Harris, then secretary of state for Florida and co-chair to Bush's Florida campaign, certified that George Bush had won the popular vote in Florida.

Jeb Bush, brother of George Bush, was the Governor of Florida at the time. Skullduggery would have been easier to arrange.

I'm not really complaining about it so much as pointing it out as a fact: the election was stolen from Al Gore. This isn't really a big deal, after all, the Democrats stole the election from the Republicans in 1960. What comes around goes around, right?

Quote:

That I agree with.

Awesome.

Quote:

No one except Obama himself is pulling race into this election. And another black candidate is not going to change anything in itself. The number of people who are racist enough not to vote for Obama because he's black is not going to increase because of the VP choice.

Not true at all. Obama's race is an inherent characteristic that is an undeniable factor in the election, to a certain extent. It may or may not be true that Obama is utilizing his race position to gain an advantage, I am not going to make any judgment there, but it is certainly a huge mistake to say that "no one except Obama himself is pulling race into this election." Hillary and Bill were the first to pull race into the election, and Obama was forced to respond.

Quote:

No, it's supposed to be someone who would make a good President, not be "a great pick." Either way, why is that not Rice? I don't think she'll be the one, but it's more about the first reason you gave than the second.

You're arguing over semantics. When I said "the VP pick is supposed to be someone who [...] would be a great presidential pick," I meant that they would be a great pick for president. There is no telling who will or will not be a great president in advance. The "pick" part imparts the element that all elections are based off: the potential to be a good president. So essentially, then, we agree with regards to that.

Quote:

If I had to guess, I'd say McCain is likely to take Romney or Huckabee.

I agree that Huckabee is a likely choice and would be a good choice for McCain. I can't say the same about Romney though. Romney had sub-par performance in the primaries. Although he may be a suave and debonair businessman with supposed economic cred, he turned out to be mostly talk and no action. Romney can't electrify the religious-right conservative base like Huckabee can.

Quote:

Obama looks to be leaning towards Webb or Kaine.

Both would be strategic and admirable choices, although there are plenty more choice that's true for. Personally, I feel that Claire McCaskill is the perfect ticket balancer for Obama. She offers southern charm which could help Obama in his weakest spot: the south. With a choice like Claire McCaskill, Obama could win Missouri (her home state), North Carolina, and Georgia. If McCain picks a female running mate, I think Obama must pick a female running mate (although the reverse is not true). As I've already said though, a female pick other than Hillary is dangerous. You can bet the veep hunters are doing intense research on this. Another great possibility is Chet Edwards of Texas; could be a great ticket balancer.